I must admit that Napoleon was the greatest military leader of the modern times. His conquests ranged from Egypt to Spain and even Moskow!!! Eventually all the major European powers had to join forces to win.

If you want throw US post WWII victories, or lack there of around, we can do that. It's pretty funny, and sad, to do. Being an American, I am sometimes very disappointed at what my government does. There will be a time when being the world's self appointed police force brings the world to the US doorstep.

I do think you can find blunders for any nation you choose to search for. Every nation has had them, certainly.

I point not a finger at any nation's soldier, but at their leaders. Nations of the world have to learn to stop butting in to every one else's business. That goes double for the US government, who seems to make a habit of doing that. I swear it's a national pasttime for us, and annoying as all hell, IMO.

Honestly, if the leaders of the world would stick to the business of running their own countries, and solving their own problems....Unemployment would be nonexistant and there would be no one starving anyplace.

The US political leaders have the ability to lose wars their military had won. In Korea the US Army fought two different wars: one against the North Korea Commie Army which was annihilated by MacArthur during and after Inchon; a second war after the Chinese Army intervened to save the battered up Koreans fellows. This second war was also winnable but President Trumann choose not to follow ofensive operations in order to have a cease fire. MacArthur went ballistic and got fired ( )
In Viet Nam, if you search, the US Army never lost a single field battle against the Viet Cong or the NVA. Everyboy talks about the Tet Offensive as a big commie victory but in Hue, in Khen Sah, everywhere the US regular regained the control of the field after kicking some red butts. The Vietnam war was lost by Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon and, specially by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara; not by their performance in the battlefield.
About Somalia: well, it´s better to see this movie "Black Hawk Down": the special forces went to fight without air superiority cover because "someone in Washington" believed it was too noisy. After the fighting was over 50 US servicemen accomplished the death of more than 1,000 armed rebels. And in Irak... not being a Bush fan myself (he is rather a bad commander) I have to say that US has the potential to erase any living sign of that country if they decide (and have the will) to do so. The US problem is one of attitude: they are not prepared to do what´s necesary. But they are they, there, in the heat, they are fighting terrorists, they are spending their money, risking their soldiers lives, which is a lot more than many countries can say they are doing.
Just an opinion.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill

Some years ago I was a Napoleonic fan myself... but after I read about the way he lost in Russia and then at Waterloo then I became a Russian and English military fan. Not saying Napoleon was a failure, he wasn´t, but he wasn´t neither the so called "war god" we tend to believe he was. He has a great propaganda machine, even today.

Waterloo is very enlighting. Try to study about Wellington, you´ll find an awesome chap! And Blucher, a stubborn old man that accomplished a miracle.

Best regards

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
The US political leaders have the ability to lose wars their military had won. In Korea the US Army fought two different wars: one against the North Korea Commie Army which was annihilated by MacArthur during and after Inchon; a second war after the Chinese Army intervened to save the battered up Koreans fellows. This second war was also winnable but President Trumann choose not to follow ofensive operations in order to have a cease fire. MacArthur went ballistic and got fired ( )
In Viet Nam, if you search, the US Army never lost a single field battle against the Viet Cong or the NVA. Everyboy talks about the Tet Offensive as a big commie victory but in Hue, in Khen Sah, everywhere the US regular regained the control of the field after kicking some red butts. The Vietnam war was lost by Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon and, specially by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara; not by their performance in the battlefield.
About Somalia: well, it´s better to see this movie "Black Hawk Down": the special forces went to fight without air superiority cover because "someone in Washington" believed it was too noisy. After the fighting was over 50 US servicemen accomplished the death of more than 1,000 armed rebels. And in Irak... not being a Bush fan myself (he is rather a bad commander) I have to say that US has the potential to erase any living sign of that country if they decide (and have the will) to do so. The US problem is one of attitude: they are not prepared to do what´s necesary. But they are they, there, in the heat, they are fighting terrorists, they are spending their money, risking their soldiers lives, which is a lot more than many countries can say they are doing.
Just an opinion.

This is very true. The problem with most US policies, is that our Presidents are afraid to disgruntle the citizens. We allow them to fight limited wars, as long as they don't over do it. The moment they do, we pull the strings back, and force them to stop.

The war over terrorism could be over by now, IMO. So could Iraq. But, again, on both fronts, we aren't pulling the trigger, so to speak. You want an end to these things...End it. Put your money where your mouth is and finish the job. But, they won't. It would take too much for the populace to handle.

What politicians don't realize in this country is that if they told us the truth to begin with, we wouldn't have any issues. Heck, I harbored no Love for Saddum. The Army was more than welcome to waltz in there and kill him during the 90s, but....They were stopped short, because of political pressure. So, we sent troops back. WRONG!!!!!!!!!! We had the troops there in the 90s, finish it!! Afghanistan...Finish it. You want Bin Laden...Do the deed, and cost the cost later.

After WWII, the US lost it's resolve to finish things. Oh, we'll start a lot of things, but when we need to finish it, we lock too many things down and tie our hands behind our backs and all because...We don't want to be the bad guy, and...We need votes to get reelected. Stupidity is the ultimate answer. We would have lost a lot fewer lives if we had done the job right to begin with.

Bgile wrote:So, if the US was a dictatorship and not a democracy we would win more wars? Maybe true, but what's the point?

I'm not saying make it a dictatorship, just get a few leaders that can make up their minds, without worrying about what the population thinks.

Honestly, the best terms in office, per President, have been years where the President was not going to get reelected, for what ever reason. IMO, the problem lies in the fact that the President needs popularity to get elected. That popularity comes at a price.

That price is, for example: THe US wants to end Saddum's reign in Iraq. But, we can't go too far, because well, the population won't like it, and I won't get reelected if I go too far. So, we'll just put some bodies on the graound, and look like we're doing something about the problem. That should make the population happy, because we aren't sending a lot of people over there, but we are trying to fix the problem. The Iraq issue could be done and over with by now, if Bush had put all the troops he thought he needed on the ground at one time, plus 10 to 20% more. Overwhelming force could have had that done and over with long ago.

"- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States [Entering the war late -ed.]. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline"

The US political leaders have the ability to lose wars their military had won. In Korea the US Army fought two different wars: one against the North Korea Commie Army which was annihilated by MacArthur during and after Inchon; a second war after the Chinese Army intervened to save the battered up Koreans fellows. This second war was also winnable but President Trumann choose not to follow ofensive operations in order to have a cease fire. MacArthur went ballistic and got fired ( :( )
In Viet Nam, if you search, the US Army never lost a single field battle against the Viet Cong or the NVA. Everyboy talks about the Tet Offensive as a big commie victory but in Hue, in Khen Sah, everywhere the US regular regained the control of the field after kicking some red butts. The Vietnam war was lost by Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon and, specially by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara; not by their performance in the battlefield.
About Somalia: well, it´s better to see this movie "Black Hawk Down": the special forces went to fight without air superiority cover because "someone in Washington" believed it was too noisy. After the fighting was over 50 US servicemen accomplished the death of more than 1,000 armed rebels. And in Irak... not being a Bush fan myself (he is rather a bad commander) I have to say that US has the potential to erase any living sign of that country if they decide (and have the will) to do so. The US problem is one of attitude: they are not prepared to do what´s necesary. But they are they, there, in the heat, they are fighting terrorists, they are spending their money, risking their soldiers lives, which is a lot more than many countries can say they are doing.
Just an opinion.

The President is Commander-in chief and the President is put in the White House by the American people, or at least by those Americans who turn out to vote.
And it isn't as if they've had a lack of choice. They could have elected Barry Goldwater in 1964, or even in 1968 they could have presented the World with President George C. Wallace and Vice-President Curtis LeMay to sort out matters in Vietnam - on the other hand they could, and mercifully didn't, elect George McGovern.....

I largely agree with Karl, it is a matter of atitude and political will, it is as we have previously observed, a matter of seeking absolute victory in the way FDR saw it when his country was attacked. Even Lindburgh was able to see that.